Twins trade Billy Bullock to Braves to keep Scott Diamond
Pretty horrendous trade in my opinion. Bullock is at least a top 15 prospect with a lot of upside.
Email
PrintComments
Whaaaaaaaaaaaat the hell?
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane
Idiots...
Bill Smith has some ‘splainin’ to do.
I’d rather have Bullock than Hoey, for instance. And Perkins is better than Diamond. Chuck James is really no different than him, in fact. This organization is just dumb of late.
Basically the Twins have traded JJ Hardy for a worse version of Glen Perkins (Bullock vs. Hoey) and a guy that may never make it to the majors (Jacobsen).
It's just bad.
Maybe I’m overvaluing a reliever, but he was one of the few hard throwing guys we have in the minors. Obviously the Twins were scared off by his control issues.
Even so, he had 105 strikeouts in 74 innings last year.
"I wanted to do it because it's fun, it's fun to do bad things and drive into a car."
by PurplePeopleEaters on Mar 28, 2011 2:58 PM EDT reply actions
Twins: "we don't need no stinking power pitchers"...
unless, you know, we can get one by giving up the best SS we’ve had on this team in our lifetimes.
Uggh.
Yep.
I don’t understand taking a chance on a 28 year old pitcher with no command like Hoey and giving up on a 23 year old like Bullock.
"I wanted to do it because it's fun, it's fun to do bad things and drive into a car."
by PurplePeopleEaters on Mar 28, 2011 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly.
Most of the Twins moves this year are contradictory and illogical, because they show a complete lack of direction. It seems to me that the Twins FO this offseason are playing darts in the dark, while completely shitfaced, hoping they get a bulls-eye.
FREE AIRWOLF!
ROHLFING!!!!!
No. You are not. They Twins traded from a spot of weakness (hard throwing relievers) for an area of strength (Back of the rotation starters/long relievers)
Terrible trade in all aspects. If the Twins are scared off by his walks, Another reason why the Twins strict “no walks” philosophy irks me sometimes. Not walking people is obviously nice, especially with a player with mediocre K rates it is important, but if you are striking people out at Bullock’s rate and still walking people at a high rate it is ok if you are not allowing much contact! Walks hurt, but not as much as extra base hits.
FREE AIRWOLF!
ROHLFING!!!!!
Except that 10-14 K/9 with 5-6 BB/9 in high A and AA...
turns into walking practically everybody in MLB as all those Ks on chased pitches turn into balls.
He has to improve a lot, period, before he’ll work in MLB.
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Does it realy matter?
He might improve. He might help the Twins in 2 years, but he might also suck and be completly worthless to the Twins. He’s a relief pitcher that hasn’t cracked AA. To have a solid opinion of what he can do I am sure you would need plenty of time watching him in Ft Myers and New Britain. I’m going to take a stab in that dark and say that has not happened. But you know who has watched him alot? The Twins. I think they have a pretty good idea of what he was and what he was going to become. Could they be wrong, of course, but when it comes to moves like this I give them the benefit of the doubt and defer to the opinion of those who have watched and developed him.
by tc_brent on Mar 28, 2011 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I am the last person to play the "trust the Twins" card...
but I would say his BB rate got worse at every level. SSS and all…
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
it's just that I don't trust the braves
If it was a team other than the Braves I’d feel a lot better about it. The Braves have historically done very well when trading for minor leaguers
by Jon Kammerer on Mar 28, 2011 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
3 cheers for a voice of reason
Guys who who walk around 6BB per 9 innings in the minors are not exactly non-expendable. That being said, I do not see a whole lot of upside on the Diamond front.
I still do not think trading away a guy with command issues such as that merits the viewpoint that the Twins are idiots. I think that viewpoint is all too prevalent around here lately.
Run baby run!
Absolutely
The explosion of anger over something (valuing a starter more than a reliever, generally) that normally gets serene nodding of heads around here is puzzling…
Instead, its Le Freak…
by MajorLongfont on Mar 28, 2011 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
23, yes.
Certainly has time to improve it. It will take a LOT of improvement. Then he can be worth what relief pitchers are worth, which is a lot less than most people assume.
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes. Plenty of time. At least 3-4 years before his prime.
With proper instruction and practice a pitcher can learn control. But a hard fast ball or a great breaking ball can’t be taught. Pitchers either have it or they don’t. Just like hitting power.
FREE AIRWOLF!
ROHLFING!!!!!
Honest question
Has there been a single +EV move this offseason?
by Milt on Tilt on Mar 28, 2011 2:59 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Is it ok to complain about this?
or do I have to just take it with a smile?
by eau claire twins fan on Mar 28, 2011 3:00 PM EDT reply actions
Good move.
As Sickels said, Diamond could be a “very nice 4th starter”.
Billy Bullock is a relief pitcher, period, who walked almost 6 batters per 9 in AA. He has a ton of work to do with his control, THEN he can maybe be worth 1.5 WAR in MLB.
Diamond is almost there as a starter. Groundball stuff, consistent home run suppression at every (age appropriate) level of minor league ball, hurt (as most groundballers are) a bit by minor league infield defense. Backend starters are more valuable than all but the most elite relievers.
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 3:00 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Kyle Farnsworth or Paul Maholm
The Twins just picked Paul Maholm. Actually Bullock walks more than Farnsworth at a similar age.
Maholm's a solid pitcher.
His infield defense killed him last year and on a whole has done him no favors over his career. Diamond might be a little more GB-heavy. I’d rather have 6 years of young Maholm than 6 years of young Farnsworth, no question, hands down.
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions
dang, I'm a bit perplexed
I mean I was happy when we got Diamond via the rule 5 draft but to give up a guy who has closer upside is ridiculous. Maybe there’s something about Bullock or Diamond we just don’t know. I’m not gonna get too upset about swapping minor league guys who are not top 10 players.
Peyton's good but have you ever heard of Jeff George?
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Mar 28, 2011 3:06 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Horrible
Here’s why the move is absolutely indefensible: the Twins are carrying two worthless lefties on the 25-man roster. If Diamond has value, why didn’t he replace one of them.
Shockingly stupid move. Irrefutable proof that Bill Smith is incompetent.
Because his value...
is as a starting pitcher. He hopefully needs just a few months in AAA and he’s an MLB ready starter. At that point, if necessary to the big club, he can relieve, but that’s not really his forte.
I would’ve PREFERRED he be stashed in the back of the bullpen and Hughes be ditched (THAT is the real mistake, IMO), but given that they kept Hughes, I’m fine giving up Bullock.
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry but no. For one thing, plenty of young pitchers start out in the bullpen. And if Diamond was really that amazing I doubt Atlanta would have left him unprotected, and also that numerous teams would have passed on taking him in the Rule V before the Twins did.
You can’t say “given that they kept Hughes…” Roster moves are related. If they really wanted Diamond, they should have kept him instead of Hughes or Perkins. Extremely simple. What the Twins did is just idiotic to a degree that is rarely seen even in professional sports.
by drivlikejehu on Mar 28, 2011 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok, that's just pure hyperbole
I don’t have much of an opinion on this trade, but
What the Twins did is just idiotic to a degree that is rarely seen even in professional sports.
Have you seen some of the contracts the NBA hands out?
by archie2227 on Mar 28, 2011 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Rec.
Bucky's 5th Quarter The best site for Badger news on the web!
Follow me on Twitter for the latest Badger Bits @veldyhoosey
On, Wisconsin!
by John Veldhuis on Mar 28, 2011 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
No, I can say it.
And I will. IT WAS A MISTAKE TO KEEP DUSTY HUGHES.
However, if that was written in stone, which it unfortunately was, I am fine with trading Billy Bullock for Scott Diamond given that this has the upside of allowing Diamond to start in AAA (I presume – everything changes if he’s in the pen there).
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions
To be clear...
yes, if they really wanted Diamond they should have kept him instead of Hughes or Perkins.
That’s not the situation as it exists, though.
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
You seem to think those decisions are somehow linear- i.e., ’We’re going to keep Dusty Hughes’ so therefore ‘We need to trade for Diamond.’
But that’s not how things work. If they liked Diamond it should have prevented them from keeping Perkins and Hughes in the first place.
by drivlikejehu on Mar 28, 2011 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't disagree that it SHOULD have prevented them...
But given the Hughes love that emanated practically from day 1 of spring training I do think the decisions, as it happened, were from the F.O.’s perspective relatively “linear”, as you put it. They liked Hughes for whatever reason. Wrong evaluation, but they did.
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Well... kind of
Sorry but no. For one thing, plenty of young pitchers start out in the bullpen.
This is true… and then they are relievers their entire careers. Pitchers rarely make the reliever-to-starter transition when they were exclusively relievers in the minors. The guys we think of as “relievers turned starters” (and honestly, I don’t know that I can think of many… Johan Santana?) are generally guys who were starters in the minors but didn’t get a rotation spot when they first made the majors, so they relieved for a while.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
That was exactly my point. I was referring to Diamond, who started in the minors.
by drivlikejehu on Mar 28, 2011 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Again: My preferred option, stated several times on this blog, was to keep Diamond as mopup and dump Hughes.
You cannot dismiss the apparent fact that the Twins were predisposed from the beginning to keep Hughes if you want to have a sensible discussion about what they should have done, given the situation as they saw it. That is, if you want to evaluate this trade given the situation as it existed this morning.
It sucks that we have to do this, given how utterly replaceable Dusty Hughes is, but that’s the reality in which this decision was made.
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I understand what you’re saying but I just don’t think it is relevant from the outside perspective. And even if they like Hughes that still leaves the matter of Perkins.
by drivlikejehu on Mar 28, 2011 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
They might have done that
But Diamond was not ready to start the season.
Kyle Farnsworth for Paul Maholm
This isn’t close to being important enough to match up with your comments.
I’m not all that high on Bullock really, but they literally gave him away for no reason. It’s not that damaging in the scheme of things, true, but the level of idiocy is no lower because of it.
by drivlikejehu on Mar 28, 2011 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
They traded him for Diamond
Diamond is not ready to help the team win in April but he’s valuable. They think Dusty Hughes is ready to help the team in the bullpen now. They think Diamond is worth more than Bullock.
That much is obvious
But they’re wrong on Bullock. And it’s irresponsible to trade a closer candidate the year you are about to lose both Nathan and Capps to free agency. We have tens of fifth starter candidates. We have one potential future closer (Gutierrez). We used to have two.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
We don't know what they know
Maybe Bullock stopped being considered closer material and they really like Gutierrez.
I don’t see that we can judge this move yet. Too much is still up in the air on both players involved
by twinscrazy_german on Mar 28, 2011 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Kevin Slowey
They’re more likely to convert a starter to closer than go with a minor league reliever.
Interesting, maybe, but not really all that novel
Joe Nathan, Eddie Guardado, Rick Aguilera, Mariano Rivera – all became closers after first failing to establish themselves as starting pitchers.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
I love Slowey...
but I think he’s ill-suited for the closer role. Makes more sense to have the traditional power arm there. I think Gutierrez is the guy, and have thought so for some time. But I thought Bullock was going to be our future setup man.
Slowey should be in this rotation over Blackburn easily though, IMO. Heck, I’d take him over Duensing as well. Just another case of Gardy playing favorites.
Well sure, if Dusty Hughes and Glen Perkins suddenly become good pitchers then the Diamond vs. Bullock debate can be had. But in reality both Hughes and Perkins are replacement-level guys.
The Twins could have kept Diamond and Bullock without giving up any value at all. That’s why the move was so dumb.
by drivlikejehu on Mar 28, 2011 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
First Eduardo Morlan, then Loek Van Mil, now Billy Bullock.
The Twins don’t like hard-throwing relief pitchers.
Except they trade a top 5 AL SS (in terms of WAR) for a pair of no-future AAA hard throwers.
Making this move more perplexing.
FREE AIRWOLF!
ROHLFING!!!!!
Or just highlights how bad that move was.
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes.
And showing that the front office has no clear plan right now. They are overreacting to the current bullpen situation and trade from areas of tremendous lack of depth for an area that is 1.) not that important on the outcome of the season, i,e middle relievers and AAAA type starters. 2.) An area of tremendous depth.
They twins are throwing shit at a wall right now and hoping it sticks to solve a problem that doesn’t exist (or at least isn’t that important). And in the mean time making the team worse off now (trading away Hardy), and in the future (trading away a 23 year old power bullpen arm, albeit a wild one, for a 28 year old AAAA starter). Two terrible trades.
FREE AIRWOLF!
ROHLFING!!!!!
28 year old AAAA Starter!?!?!??!
This will be Diamond’s age 24 season. And he’s a legit prospect. Sorry, that’s just not accurate.
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm sorry. Somebody said he was 28 on a different thread. My bad, but he is actually 25.
If he is such a legit prospect why did the Braves dump him off the 40 man? He only has three years of service time, so that means the Braves put him on waivers right for him to qualify for the rule 5. But whatever the case was if he was such a good prospect he’d have been protected. You obviously really like Diamond, I get it. But I really think he’s not very valuable to the TWINS because we have his type of pitcher coming out of the ears.
FREE AIRWOLF!
ROHLFING!!!!!
No, he's 24 and this is his age 24 season. July 30, 1986
This will be his “Baseball Age” 24 season, per the standard of a player’s age on June 1.
The point is not that he fills a present-moment Twins need. He’s not a Twin For Life now, though, nor is anyone else on the team. Starting pitching is a much more valuable commodity than relief pitching. If he demonstrates mastery of AAA as a starter in his age 24 season, he’s tradeable for more than a Billy Bullock. Moreover the Twins FO may (properly) not have the faith in Duensing and Blackburn they publicly claim to have. They may be prepared to move one or more of their present MLB starters for SS help, elite bullpen help (I hope not) and/or top-level prospects that are a few years away. Diamond, to me, is a step away from ably replacing Duensing or Blackburn or, in my opinion not quite so ably, Slowey.
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Still on this?
A: Noone else wanted Hardy. I am inferring that based on what we got for him. Maybe I am wrong, but not enough teams were willing to shill out anything for the right to spend $6 mil on the guy.
B: Paying 6 million for a 9 hitter who does not hit well enough nowadays to earn $6 million is not a move that should only be scorned.
In a vacuum, the move is weird, but since they used that money to keep Pavano and Thome, basically leads me to give them the benefit of the doubt on this trade. If you only use WAR calculaters to judge trades, then noone would ever trade anyone anymore.
Run baby run!
????
Not if your of the belief that I am that: 1.) Pavano and Thome really don’t give the Twins a whole lot extra, while I immensely respect both players, Thome is redundant with Kubel and we have plenty of pitching depth and I don’t think overpaying for Pavano helps out that much. 2.) Both are getting up in age are due for alot of regression. 3.) Shortstop has been an area of organizational weakness for the Twins for as long as I can remember. 4.) A healthy season of Hardy is worth more than a healthy season of Pavano, as the drop off from Pavano to his replacements (Slowey or Gibson) is less than Hardy’s replacement (Casilla, Plouffe).
And why I’m on this is because I am looking at BOTH trades, thus not in a vacuum like you said, your logic is flawed. We traded a really great SS (an organizational weakness) for power bullpen arms (another organizational weakness, albeit these were old ex-prospects), and now we traded a power bullpen arm (who happens to be a true prospect) for a 4th starter at best (back of the rotation starters are arguably, the Twins biggest strength). When added to a surplus gives you less value than you would otherwise get due to the law of diminishing returns.
FREE AIRWOLF!
ROHLFING!!!!!
"overpaying for pavano" ???
Beg to disagree…
Yeah, I disagree with that part as well
He was supposedly offered 2/13 from the Pirates and 1/7-10 from the Yankees. We got him for 2/16.5. I’d say that was pretty close to what he was worth. I was hoping it would be 15 or less, but I’ll take 16.5.
I’ll take 8 million a year when he was making 7 million last year. Slight pay increase (per year) for a guy who helped the rotation immensely.
Baseball reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.-Terence Mann/James Earl Jones in FoD
I'm not sure you realize what you just did....
If those numbers are correct, it looks to me like you are describing “overpaying” to a T.
He’s getting up in age, so multiple years are a must (remove Yanks offer) meaning that he somehow agreed to take MORE money from a contending team (Twins) than he would’ve gotten from a non-contender (Pirates).
Since a guy is really only worth what anyone is willing to pay him, and everyone else was below our offer, that’s overpaying.
"...and we'll see ya tomorrow night!" - Jack Buck, Game 6, 1991 World Series
by WindyCityTwinsFan on Mar 28, 2011 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions
There will always be someone at the top
That team doesn’t necessarily always overpay and I don’t believe the Twins did. Do you consider every team that signs a player to be overpaying? Renteria was offered a million dollars from the Giants but the Reds gave him 2.1. I wouldn’t say “holy cow! the Reds way overpaid!” just because they paid him more money than another team would have.
It’s not like a player gets the same exact offer from every team and gets to pick which one to accept, almost every single time there is one offer higher than the rest. That doesn’t equal an automatic overpay. If they gave Pavano 3/30 I would be freaking out. That would be an awful deal, even if the second closest offer would have been 3/25. Both of those are bad and an overpay.
I look at it as a year to year salary. I’m not exactly sure what the Yankees threw out there but I know it was 7-10 for a year, which is the same range the Twins are paying him. The Pirates did offer him less a year so they are easily paying him more than the Pirates are, but it’s still not THAT far off.
When I looked at Pavano this offseason I was hoping the Twins would do 1/8 or 2/15. Since it ended up being 2/16.5, that’s more than I had hoped for, but it’s not a situation to freak out and scream overpay about.
Baseball reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.-Terence Mann/James Earl Jones in FoD
Take a second and consider the other teams in the conversation
The Pirates haven’t finished above .500 since 1992 – this is a team that is desperate to win. The Yanks are world famous for overpaying players, and their starting rotation was/is in shambles and they needed starting pitching this offseason. We are paying Pavano more than either of these teams were willing to pay. Overpaying by $10 is still overpaying, let alone $3.5M.
No amount of “freaking out” or “screaming” by anyone, anywhere is going to do a damn thing about any of this, so I’m not sure of the relevance of that. The point is, you can’t lay out how much more we were willing to pay to have a player than any other team, then say we’re not overpaying him. When the other teams that made him offers were $1.5 – 2M below what you got him for, you’re paying too much.
"...and we'll see ya tomorrow night!" - Jack Buck, Game 6, 1991 World Series
by WindyCityTwinsFan on Mar 29, 2011 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions
They're underpaying Pavano
Relative to similiar pitchers, Pavano is an absolute bargain. Check out Derek Lowe and Ted Lilly’s contracts for starters.
+1
The going rate for a guy of Pavano’s credentials at the winter meetings was 3/30. Rob Antony said in his interview on this site that he told Carl he couldn’t match the going rate. He expected to lose him to free agency. But Carl came back to the Twins, turning down a much larger one-year offer from the Yankees to do so.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
The hated yanquis?
Carl “Glass Jaw” Pavano is much hated by yanqui fans. It’s like hearing the Twins tried to outbid the WSox for AJ Pierzynski.
"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett
RT @RonGarde You can Tweet that. Just Tweet it. You don't even have to write it. Just fire it through the Internet.
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Mar 29, 2011 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions
So which teams offered him more, then?
"...and we'll see ya tomorrow night!" - Jack Buck, Game 6, 1991 World Series
by WindyCityTwinsFan on Mar 29, 2011 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
THe Yankees offered him $10 million for one year plus an option
The Twins offered 2 years and $16 million with no option.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
The Pirates are absolutely NOT desperate to win this year.
They finally have a good GM and are in the midst of a total rebuild. He started with a GUTTED, scorched earth minor league system 3 years ago and has had to rebuild with that. The Pirates fully understand they’re not going to compete this year, but they also wouldn’t mind looking semi-respectable and they need a pitcher for this year (not so much next year), thus they threw an offer at Pavano they could live with considering they are NOT desperate.
FWIW, I thought the Yankee offer was definitively MORE for the year. 9 something IIRC.
Pavano’s deal looks pretty good when you look at what some semi-stiffs got around the league. Look at Correira (shiver) and the Pirates, for example.
by tobynotjason on Mar 29, 2011 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
So you're basically saying every player in MLB is overpaid
Okay then. While it’s true in a sense that they get paid to play a game…I just don’t agree that “even if it’s $10 over the other team it’s overpaying.” That just doesn’t make sense to me.
Overpay to me is giving a guy way more money than he deserves: Zito, Punto etc. It’s not getting a discount on a guy who likely should have been paid twice as much (Pavano). As DJL44 said, guys who are comparable to him ended up with much more.
Baseball reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.-Terence Mann/James Earl Jones in FoD
I don't agree with this, either
Comps and value only work when there’s no other offers on the table (ie trying to hold onto a player before he hits free agency) – if the comps statement is true, and Pavano was available at the time, why didn’t he get any offers that high? You all contend he was worth it, so why was the only other 2-year offer he got $3.5M below the Twins’?
"...and we'll see ya tomorrow night!" - Jack Buck, Game 6, 1991 World Series
by WindyCityTwinsFan on Mar 29, 2011 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Demand came off the table early
There are a limited number of roster slots. The longer it takes to get signed the lower the number. Maybe Pavano held out for a 3 year deal too long and got passed by. You’re assuming Pavano’s agent negotiated perfectly.
A-ha, now we're getting somewhere.
You were just telling me that he’s worth a Ted Lilly contract (3/30), but here you say he’s not worth a 3-year deal. So which is it? Is he worth Ted Lilly or not?
That’s my whole point – both of these guys were on the market at the same time, and for one to get that contract and the other one not to even get an offer means that one is worth more than the other. If Pavano was worth more, he would have gotten higher offers. So when the people who are actually shopping for pitchers offer 1/10 and 2/13, going all the way up to 2/16.5 is overpaying what the rest of the market was willing to give.
"...and we'll see ya tomorrow night!" - Jack Buck, Game 6, 1991 World Series
by WindyCityTwinsFan on Mar 30, 2011 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
not sure about this, but who of these guys is major league caliber?
I think what you meant to say was, the Twins don’t liek hard-throwing relief pitchers who aren’t very good.
by tc_brent on Mar 28, 2011 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This.
Eduardo Morlan?
From being an untradeable hotshot relief prospect he has since been left unprotected in the Rule 5 draft and is now in the business of signing one-year minor league deals to stay in the game.
Billy Bullock looks like a good relief prospect but his numbers don’t look as good as Morlan’s did.
And Loek Van Mil???!!! We’re concerned about losing Loek Van Mil? I know he’s on the Angels 40 man but c’mon – the odds are against Loek doing much in the big leagues, no?
Meanwhile….
Nathan, Guerrier, Duensing… just some of the names of recent minor league starting pitchers that became stud relievers for us.
Think relief prospects are being over-valued juusst a bit.
Who is in the Twins bullpen?
Manship, Perkins, Delaney or Slama?
We tend to overvalue lower level prospects
as well as power pitchers. I’m neutral as how the Twins did on this trade, but I don’t think it was an unreasonable trade. A level players and lower are like penny stocks, they have tremendous upsides but nine out of ten are going to flame out. Bullocks’ future largely depends on how trainable he is. His time at AA shows he has a hole in his game large enough to drive a truck through. He would have had a lot to fix just to get to Rochester.
The only stat that counts is W
A player’s UZR does not necessarily tell you how he actually played just as it does not necessarily tell you what his true talent is. Mitchel Lichtman, creator of UZR
This.
If he pitched in Rochester with the same game he had at the end of last year, his BB rate would be 1 per inning, his K rate would be average and his ERA would be ridiculous. A ratio like his suggests unsophisticated hitters chasing stuff in unhittable (non-strike) locations because they aren’t good enough to do otherwise.
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions
We're agreeing. Thats kind of scary :)
The only stat that counts is W
A player’s UZR does not necessarily tell you how he actually played just as it does not necessarily tell you what his true talent is. Mitchel Lichtman, creator of UZR
40 man roster
So, Diamond was on the 40 man roster before clearing waivers, right? So, now the Twins have 2 open spots? No point to this, just looking for clarification.
by Pedro Munoz is fast on Mar 28, 2011 3:21 PM EDT reply actions
Correct
There are only 38 names on the 40-man roster right now, and none of them are “Diamond.”
"...and we'll see ya tomorrow night!" - Jack Buck, Game 6, 1991 World Series
by WindyCityTwinsFan on Mar 28, 2011 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
"Twins pay steep price to avoid sending Rule 5 pick Scott Diamond back to Braves"
Aaron Gleeman article: http://bit.ly/hDn0pW
Gleeman's main takeaway is the right one...
The mistake is in keeping Hughes and thus being forced to trade for Diamond.
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAAA.
Pay a steep price…HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Billy Bullock, steep price…AHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAA
Oh that’s too funny. I didn’t realize Gleeman was writing headlines for the Onion Sports page.
What
Bullock led AA in saves as a 22 year old for a team that was last in the league. He throws 98 miles an hour with a devastating slider. Where do you find arms like that? This is undoubtedly a high price to pay.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
On the free agent market
Kyle Farnsworth has bounced around the majors. He’s never been particularly valuable.
Good comp
And a good Diamond comp would be Mike Maroth.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
That's a joke.
Maroth never posted numbers in the minors like Diamond. K, BB and HR rates all inferior by far.
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
he'll never start more than 5-6 games for the Twins in his career....
he’s currently no better than 8th on the pecking order and he doesn’t figure to get higher than that in the next year (Wimmers/Bromberg, etc.).
Whether it's a good move or not doesn't hang on whether he starts games for the Twins.
It also matters what he does as a reliever for the Twins and what he brings if flipped, does it not?
That said, are you really that confident in Blackburn and Duensing? Are you equally confident the Twins aren’t preparing to trade Slowey? To trade Liriano? With a couple of [trade, injury or stumble], he could easily be needed in the rotation this season.
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions
maybe not...
and they shouldn’t be confident in those two.
But if they 1) trade Liriano, or 2) trade Slowey for a reliever, as rumored;
then they’re even dumber than we thought. Those trades would be even worse than this one in all likelihood.
Depends what they get for either of them.
In light of his track record as a whole, I would bet I’ll be calling for B.S.‘s head, though. I’d rather not have to.
by tobynotjason on Mar 29, 2011 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Does anyone else look at Diamond and see Duensing?
I mean anyone else commenting. Obviously, this is what the Twins see.
I see > Duensing, slightly.
I talked about this in another thread. Comp. their minor league numbers, Diamond shades Duensing.
by tobynotjason on Mar 28, 2011 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I see Mark Guthrie
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Hmmm.
Well, this kinda sucks.
Bucky's 5th Quarter The best site for Badger news on the web!
Follow me on Twitter for the latest Badger Bits @veldyhoosey
On, Wisconsin!
Seth Speaketh.
http://talkintwinsbb.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/twins-keep-diamond-deal-bullock/
FREE AIRWOLF!
ROHLFING!!!!!
Yeah me too.
The inconsistency is what bothers me.
Bucky's 5th Quarter The best site for Badger news on the web!
Follow me on Twitter for the latest Badger Bits @veldyhoosey
On, Wisconsin!
by John Veldhuis on Mar 28, 2011 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions
This is what bothers me more as well.
I feel that Diamond doesn’t have much value for the Twins because of our ridiculous depth in that area. That annoys me alot. I feel that Bullock has better potential. That annoys me, just not as much as the first point.
But what really grinds my gears is that the Twins have made too illogical and contradictory trades and made the team WORSE in both the short run and long run to solve a problem that is really just a straw man.
FREE AIRWOLF!
ROHLFING!!!!!
This trade could work well for the Twins
depends on a few things. The Twins must believe Diamond has value as a potential starting pitcher. So to Jon Kammerer’s point….yes, they see Diamond as another Duensing.
Diamond creates depth….which makes for some interesting moves…sooner rather than later. For example, already in AAA there are 5 right handed relief pitchers ahead of Bullock. Slama, Gutierriez, Waldrop, Hoey and Burnett. So Bullock was a ways off …
Diamond, if successful will also move Bromberg one step down the ladder…probably to the bullpen, or as additional trade bait. Gibson and Diamond become options 1 and 2 to replace any starters (assuming Slowey is traded)….Wimmers is likely option number 3 down the road….Hendriks is option 4.
So this trade probably gets the Twins one step closer to the next trade. Which will involve Slowey, or…Baker…or perhaps both will be traded within the next 12 months. The real question is what we get for those two arms? Will Diamond help get more value than Bullock would have ….sooner than later…because that is when this trade can be completely evaluated.
by NorthDakotaTwinsFan on Mar 28, 2011 3:38 PM EDT reply actions
(plugs ears) lalalalalala
I don’t hear you trading away Slowey, I don’t hear you
by twinscrazy_german on Mar 28, 2011 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
That is a well given analysis
What I think most find interesting is how the Hardy trade is then presented by the movement of Bullock. If Hoey or Jacobson are available to being offloaded in the same fashion that Bullock was, for a low-mid level prospect starter, was it really worth the value of a quality starting shortstop proven at a major league level.
With Hardy obviously comes the question of injuries and the ability to retain him in the long term. However, his value as compared to the risks of Casilla and Nishioka surely places him at greater value then chips to be offloaded for emergency starts. If Casilla (I think the more likely) goes down and the Twins are left trying to replace him with Tolbert (shudders) or Luke Hughes, then the value really becomes starting shortstop vs prospect emergency starter. I think everybody has a problem facing that trade.
by Sportsavenue on Mar 28, 2011 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I wonder what
I wonder what made the Twins sour on him so aggressively. They liked him enough just 2 years ago to invest a valuable second round pick and a large signing bonus in his acquisition, and now they’ve given him up for a 40-man cast off. There isn’t any (currently known) injury history, or any substantial statistical problem, so clearly it’s something else.
Whatever it is, the Twins obviously disagree with the public sentiment that Bullock was a top 15 prospect and they now have some reason to be disinterested. It’ll be interesting to watch this one…
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane
An insane number of walks?
That seems to be more taboo to the Twins than an ornery personality. I am shocked that Shooter Hunt wasn’t traded for a bag of baseballs at some point last year… ;-)
Run baby run!
They've seen him for 2+ years now
Maybe he isn’t getting any better in spring training. Sometimes a prospect has hit his ceiling and it’s time to deal him before everyone else realizes it.
Gotta be something like that
Though I feel like they could get more for Bulluck anyway, but still, they must have some opinion like this…
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane
Hard to see the rational in this trade
Smith claimed one of the reason’s they made the trade with Baltimore was they wanted power arms in the minors & now they give away one of their best arms for a fringy LH?
Yes, he has control problems but finding guys that strike out 14.7/9 in AA is rare. If Diamond was really that good the Twins could have kept him on the roster instead of Manship or Hughes, both of whom have options left. Plus, if Atlanta thought Diamond had much of a future they wouldn’t have left him unprotected or given him up in a trade. He also cleared waivers so nobody else thought highly of him either.
I usually give the Twins the benefit of the doubt but this just seems like a dumb move.
Interesting Dusty Hughes Stat....
2010 Season…Dusty Hughes vs. AJ Pierzynski, Juan Pierre, Adam Dunn, Shin-Soo Choo, Victor Martinez, Grady Sizemore.
Combined 3 for 19 (.157 BA) One home run….. AJ Pierzynski.
That must be reason #2 why they got him
He did well against the Twins and he did well against our biggest competition.
Baseball reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.-Terence Mann/James Earl Jones in FoD
You'd think the world was about to end if you looked at my twitter feed
It’s all a freaking broken record to me at this point—
Twins make move, stat heads FREAK out.
Whatever.
"It happened in the moment, and it happened." - Carlos Gomez
At least they were limited to 140 characters or less.
"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett
RT @RonGarde You can Tweet that. Just Tweet it. You don't even have to write it. Just fire it through the Internet.
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Mar 28, 2011 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Or 120 if you're a Senator from Iowa
The only stat that counts is W
A player’s UZR does not necessarily tell you how he actually played just as it does not necessarily tell you what his true talent is. Mitchel Lichtman, creator of UZR
Bill Smith knows what he's doing - just trust the process...
Plus us Twins fans always way over rate our top 10 prospects, and in most cases those guys are like no way. For example, there once were two guys we over rated named Garza and Ramos. NOW where are they? I’m far too busy to look them up, but I would assume they are out of baseball by now. Regardless, I hear Diamond has his air brakes license so even if he never makes it as our #7 spot stater he can always help the organization in some other way. Trust the process!
Garza pitched 204 innings for the Rays last year
The Rays traded him to the Cubs in the off season.
Ramos was just traded last year. He’s still only 23 years old.
Although I agree with your point (Twins fans overvalue what the Twins can realistically do in trades), I’d be a little more careful before making an assumption like that about Garza and Ramos.
"It happened in the moment, and it happened." - Carlos Gomez
I think you missed the satire
Buddy Grant really should have finished his post with a smiley or lol
The only stat that counts is W
A player’s UZR does not necessarily tell you how he actually played just as it does not necessarily tell you what his true talent is. Mitchel Lichtman, creator of UZR
Yeah sorry to cause head scratching there...
I was trying to be so over-the-top that a smiley was not required. Every team’s teams fans over rate their prospects, so singling out the Twins for this indiscretion is a wash, but I think a budget conscious team like the Twins has to place higher value on their top prospects than many other teams, and it does not appear that the Twins FO is doing this in recent years. I wonder if this is a trust issue with their own scouting, drafting, and player development capabilities.
by Buddy Grant on Mar 29, 2011 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't like this trade at all...
and for all the reasons you guys have mentioned. I just don’t see the fit. Diamond “Could be a very nice #4 Starter”, Bullock “Could be a huge force in the bullpen”…From the Twins perspective: Bullpen questions this year and beyond, and a plethora of back-end starter candidates; it just doesn’t make sense. If Diamond is going to be turned into a RP, then, to me, it makes even less sense, as that would be a “What’s the point?” move. Also, someone else mentioned this, but the fact that the Twins were “surprised” Diamond was left unprotected, and “more surprised” he was still available at their pick in the Rule V draft, and he cleared waivers to be trade eligible, sets off Alarm Bells for me. This tells me no other team had even close to the positive scouting report on him that the Twins did. Then throw in the fact that we have 6 Starters already, Gibson in the wings, and then Perkins (who can also start), Mijares, and Hughes as lefty’s in the bullpen…tell me again where Diamond fits in the grand scheme?!? I much rather would have kept an upside power reliever then brought Diamond into the fold at AAA. He should be on the MLB roster or back with the Braves, end of story in my view.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Twinkie Town
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
